Periodic Reporting for period 2 - QuinaWorld (Tracking Neanderthals in Time and Space: was the “Quina World” the first regional cultural entity in the history of Europe?)
Reporting period: 2022-07-01 to 2023-12-31
The QuinaWorld project aims at testing the assumption that Neanderthals, rather than Homo sapiens, were behind the first cultural entity at the scale of Europe. If proven, this hypothesis would have great implications as large-scale interactions in a shared cultural context are considered a marker of behavioural modernity – and are only known in the Homo sapiens world. The backbone of this presumed cultural entity is a specific flint tool set called Quina Mousterian.
As a result, the objectives of the project are to:
- study lithic tools – their production and use, with a particular focus on the variability across regions. Quina Mousterian was first defined at the eponymous site of La Quina, in Charentes (SW France). As a matter of fact, Quina Mousterian is most commonly found in this part of Europe. However, there are other areas where it has been documented (NW and eastern, as well as southern France, but also northern Italy, northern Spain, etc.). What are the common traits and singularities within Quina Mousterian? Did the tools serve specific purposes, representing an adaptative solution to peculiar environments and/or subsistence strategies?
- look at hunting strategies, food storage and animal skin exploitation across the various areas and identify patterns to unravel social organisations of the human groups.
- precisely date the occurrences of Quina Mousterian, to test the assumption that it corresponds to a relatively short time period; alternatively, to estimate the duration of the phenomenon. In any case, the project aims at putting Quina Mousterian in its (their) climatic and environmental context(s), to explore potential links between human behaviours and changing environments.
- try and identify the biological identity of the makers of Quina Mousterian – both from morphological/phenotypical and genetic perspectives. If possible, we will also look at funerary practices.
- Beyond funerary practices, identify markers of a shared cultural identity.
In summary, Quina World is a widely interdisciplinary project centred on archaeological assemblages attributed to Neanderthals and presenting strong similarities in terms of lithic tools.
As a result, the objectives of the project are to:
- study lithic tools – their production and use, with a particular focus on the variability across regions. Quina Mousterian was first defined at the eponymous site of La Quina, in Charentes (SW France). As a matter of fact, Quina Mousterian is most commonly found in this part of Europe. However, there are other areas where it has been documented (NW and eastern, as well as southern France, but also northern Italy, northern Spain, etc.). What are the common traits and singularities within Quina Mousterian? Did the tools serve specific purposes, representing an adaptative solution to peculiar environments and/or subsistence strategies?
- look at hunting strategies, food storage and animal skin exploitation across the various areas and identify patterns to unravel social organisations of the human groups.
- precisely date the occurrences of Quina Mousterian, to test the assumption that it corresponds to a relatively short time period; alternatively, to estimate the duration of the phenomenon. In any case, the project aims at putting Quina Mousterian in its (their) climatic and environmental context(s), to explore potential links between human behaviours and changing environments.
- try and identify the biological identity of the makers of Quina Mousterian – both from morphological/phenotypical and genetic perspectives. If possible, we will also look at funerary practices.
- Beyond funerary practices, identify markers of a shared cultural identity.
In summary, Quina World is a widely interdisciplinary project centred on archaeological assemblages attributed to Neanderthals and presenting strong similarities in terms of lithic tools.
In addition to various analyses meant to investigate the items listed above, and whose results will be described below, importance has been given to surveys and excavations. Noteworthily, we excavated an open-air site in Burgundy: the site of La Mouillée proved to be the first stratified site in open air context for Quina Mousterian (most Quina sites are shelters and caves). Several sites that were subject to excavations in the past were searched for intact remnants of archaeological layers but the results were either negative or excavations are currently hampered by unsatisfactory security conditions.
Analyses of lithic assemblages have demonstrated that the Quina Mousterian in SW France is far from being as homogeneous as previously thought, with the Périgord and Charentes regions of France yielding rather strong disparities. Assemblages in Burgundy, Spain and Italy, are much more closely related to the Charentes industry than that of Périgord, even although the latter zone was considered to be part of the Quina core area. Lithic objects in Quina contexts sometimes travelled across several hundreds of kilometres, helping us to connect territories.
When looking at animal remains, it appeared that the makers of Quina Mousterian in Jonzac, who killed large numbers of reindeers during seasonal hunts during migration of the herbivores during fall, happened to use bone as raw material for the production of tools. This is a first (if we except the Chagyrskaya cave, in the Altaï) in the Neanderthal world, and yet we already expect to find similar evidence in other Quina contexts. More precisely, the novelty does not lie in the use of bone as is, but in the manufacturing of tools by knapping in a similar fashion as that implemented on lithics. In other words, animal bones represented for the makers of Quina Mousterian a raw material – obviously with very distinct properties compared to stone. Still in Jonzac, a site previously thought to be devoted to reindeer hunting, it now appears that horses were hunted in significant quantities, so that the mass of meat from the 8 horses is equivalent to that from the 28 reindeer identified. There also appear to have been differences in treatment between horse and reindeer, most notably in the number of anatomical connections (clearly more abundant on the reindeer), suggesting more intense butchery on the horse. Data on butchery gestures obtained from other archaeological sites also point to a more complex subsistence economy for Quina groups than previously imagined.
As far as dating is concerned, thus far our efforts have focussed on sampling and methodological advances; we have now demonstrated that the uncertainties associated with luminescence ages may be reduced by a factor 2 thanks to new mathematical models; namely, whereas one used to have ~5-10% uncertainties on a measured age, we may now get to ~2-3% - which is important to decipher climate-human interactions in the Neanderthal world.
Analyses of lithic assemblages have demonstrated that the Quina Mousterian in SW France is far from being as homogeneous as previously thought, with the Périgord and Charentes regions of France yielding rather strong disparities. Assemblages in Burgundy, Spain and Italy, are much more closely related to the Charentes industry than that of Périgord, even although the latter zone was considered to be part of the Quina core area. Lithic objects in Quina contexts sometimes travelled across several hundreds of kilometres, helping us to connect territories.
When looking at animal remains, it appeared that the makers of Quina Mousterian in Jonzac, who killed large numbers of reindeers during seasonal hunts during migration of the herbivores during fall, happened to use bone as raw material for the production of tools. This is a first (if we except the Chagyrskaya cave, in the Altaï) in the Neanderthal world, and yet we already expect to find similar evidence in other Quina contexts. More precisely, the novelty does not lie in the use of bone as is, but in the manufacturing of tools by knapping in a similar fashion as that implemented on lithics. In other words, animal bones represented for the makers of Quina Mousterian a raw material – obviously with very distinct properties compared to stone. Still in Jonzac, a site previously thought to be devoted to reindeer hunting, it now appears that horses were hunted in significant quantities, so that the mass of meat from the 8 horses is equivalent to that from the 28 reindeer identified. There also appear to have been differences in treatment between horse and reindeer, most notably in the number of anatomical connections (clearly more abundant on the reindeer), suggesting more intense butchery on the horse. Data on butchery gestures obtained from other archaeological sites also point to a more complex subsistence economy for Quina groups than previously imagined.
As far as dating is concerned, thus far our efforts have focussed on sampling and methodological advances; we have now demonstrated that the uncertainties associated with luminescence ages may be reduced by a factor 2 thanks to new mathematical models; namely, whereas one used to have ~5-10% uncertainties on a measured age, we may now get to ~2-3% - which is important to decipher climate-human interactions in the Neanderthal world.
Whatever will the general picture of the Quina World reveal, we have now developed new dating tools to study Neanderthals, but also landscape dynamics during the last tens to hundreds of thousand years, with a much finer time resolution. Luminescence dating has indeed be proven to be a much more precise method than previously thought.
Quina World has also shown that Neanderthals were able to use bone as a raw material for tool production; until now, only Homo sapiens was known to exploit this softer material for the design and production of specific tools. Hence, it is another trait of behavioural ‘modernity’ that is now shared by Neanderthals and modern humans.
In the near future, we expect fascinating insights into sophisticated skin exploitation patterns, funerary practices (still considered by some scholars to be absent from the Neanderthal range of habits). We also hope to get DNA from one or several populations producing specific tools – and perhaps produce a map of a cultural Europe some ~60 thousand ago.
Quina World has also shown that Neanderthals were able to use bone as a raw material for tool production; until now, only Homo sapiens was known to exploit this softer material for the design and production of specific tools. Hence, it is another trait of behavioural ‘modernity’ that is now shared by Neanderthals and modern humans.
In the near future, we expect fascinating insights into sophisticated skin exploitation patterns, funerary practices (still considered by some scholars to be absent from the Neanderthal range of habits). We also hope to get DNA from one or several populations producing specific tools – and perhaps produce a map of a cultural Europe some ~60 thousand ago.